Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Philosophy Faculty Publications Philosophy & Religious Studies 12-2013 Digital Disruptions: An Interview with D. E. Wittkower D. E. Wittkower Old Dominion University, [email protected] The ditE ors of Interstitial Journal Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/philosophy_fac_pubs Part of the Communication Technology and New Media Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Repository Citation Wittkower, D. E. and The dE itors of Interstitial Journal, "Digital Disruptions: An Interview with D. E. Wittkower" (2013). Philosophy Faculty Publications. 22. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/philosophy_fac_pubs/22 Original Publication Citation Wittkower, D. E. (2013, December 2013) Digital disruptions: An interview with D.E. Wittkower/Interviewer: The dE itors of Interstitial Journal. Interstitial Journal. This Interview is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy & Religious Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERSTITIAL JOURNAL D.E. WITTKOWER INTERVIEW Digital Disruptions An Interview with D.E. Wittkower By the Editors of Interstitial Journal D.E. Wittkower is Professor of Philosophy of Technology and Applied Ethics at Old Dominion University. His research involves the intersection of digital and popular culture, politics, economics, ethics, and aesthetics. Wittkower has edited several volumes of Open Court's Popular Culture and Philosophy series, including Facebook and Philosophy (2010), iPod and Philosophy (2011), Philip K. Dick and Philosophy (2011), and Ender's Game and Philosophy (2013). He is also the author of The Philosopher's Book of Questions and Answers (2013), which introduces readers to philosophical discourse in accessible and personal terms. You've edited a number of essay collections analyzing the intersection of philosophy and popular culture, including works discussing the iPod, Facebook, and the writings of Philip K. Dick. Are these collections simply meant to bring philosophy to the masses by employing widely accessible artifacts as sites of analysis or is there something genuinely philosophical about these phenomena, be they technological innovations or television shows? I’ll digress a bit to get around to the angle from which I’d like to answer the question. These books are not always viewed as respectable scholarship within academic philosophy. In part, this is due to a kind of disdain for popular culture—whether based in the “physics envy” that drives philosophy (along with so many other disciplines) into ostentatious scientism or based in the elitist prejudice against the common and everyday, expressed well by Schopenhauer’s injunction of “minding not the times, but the eternities”—but in part it is no doubt due to some of these books simply not being very good. Of course, many journal articles aren’t great either, but when working on the margins, and when prejudices dispose us in a certain direction, it is easy to generalize from a bad first impression. Sometimes, it may be that a book will suffer because the topic isn’t particularly philosophical. After all, these are books for a general audience, and having a www.interstitialjournal.com · December: 2013 · 1 INTERSTITIAL JOURNAL D.E. WITTKOWER INTERVIEW sufficient fan base to support sales is an important part of how these titles are selected. But that already makes me suspicious of any judgment that a book might be bad due to its unphilosophical topic: my intuition is that, if something is popular, it must be striking a chord with a great number of people, and must therefore be in touch with or at least touching upon a few tensed strings of the soul, to use a Nietzschean image. I’m inclined to say that if it’s popular, it must be worthy of philosophical investigation—although there may be some topics that are popular because they allow people to explore things worth exploring and others that merely prey upon or exploit things worth exploring. A clear case: people read Philip K. Dick in part because his stories allow them to work through fascinating issues of fate, time, and human value. An ambiguous case: people don’t listen to iPods because they want to work through questions of identity and community, but in the listening, they are working through those issues. And a clear case on the other extreme: people watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo or truly mindless violent action movies because they want to experience but not work through worthwhile issues— ridicule and passive catharsis are ways of not thinking, although the objects of thought that they are not thinking about are not less worthwhile, just more difficult to engage “fans” on. So, while the massive popularity of something seems to me to be clear evidence that it connects to philosophically valuable territory, the mode of public engagement may be variously open or closed to exploration of that territory. My perspective here also informs how I serve as editor to these volumes. I believe that philosophy has retreated from public life today, for complex and multiple reasons, but that people have not ceased to be interested in and engaged with philosophical issues. Just as today, lamentably, when journalists want a commentator on straightforwardly philosophical topics like meaning and values in contemporary life, they turn to psychologists or religious figures, rather than philosophers, so too, when people want to explore philosophical issues they turn to fiction, film, and scripture rather than to philosophy. Popular culture may not always do it well or even take a helpful approach, but the fact is that today, philosophical work is being carried out by and through popular culture. What I ask of authors in these volumes, and what I strive for in my own writing on popular culture, is to draw out the philosophical work already taking place, and to give “fans” language and theories to better do the work that they were already doing through popular culture. The worst of chapters in these books, in my view, are those that simply use the element of popular culture as an opening to bring in some basically foreign topic from academic philosophy. “Oh, you like [whatever movie]? Well, let me tell you about something really interesting!” It’s disrespectful and simply false to think that non-philosophers aren’t philosophical; the difference has less than we often think to do with content and meaning, and more than we often www.interstitialjournal.com · December: 2013 · 2 INTERSTITIAL JOURNAL D.E. WITTKOWER INTERVIEW think to do with style, tradition, and rigor. Now, that’s not nothing, but it’s also not everything. Implied in the proliferation of new media technology is the erosion of corporate control of the digital landscape. One of the ways corporations combat the collapse of the user/producer binary is through what you've termed "systematic colonization," whereby information companies price innovation beyond use by independent producers. Can you explain the process by which systematic colonization takes place and why you believe that it leads to a renewed feudalism? I’m adapting the notion of “systematic colonization” that Marx discussed in Capital, Vol. I,1 wherein the interests of the mother country are enforced by establishing a set price for unowned land in the colonies (where “unowned” is, of course, predicated on out-of-hand dismissal of any native rights). In this circumstance of abundance, the labourer is reunited with the means of production and artificial scarcity must be introduced if profits are still to be extracted. In the digital space, wherein we are all colonists, the interests of established economic powers are enforced by a similar prevention of free employment of the means of production abundant and non- competitively available to us. Through the abuse of patent portfolios, corporations are able to limit innovation by threat of lawsuits. Even a spurious claim of patent infringement is economically devastating to the entrepreneur who is not an established economic power, ensuring that market control of digital spaces is limited to those corporations able to afford a patent dispute, or, more often, possessing a patent portfolio deep enough to mount a counter-claim strong enough to force a détente or licensing exchange. This introduces a sort of re-emergent feudalism, in which we live and work in digital environments that we control and employ, but do not own. Just as the serf belonged to the land he worked, so too today we work on and with digital wares that we possess, but do not own. Now, this is from my 2008 article, “Revolutionary Industry and Digital Colonialism.”2 Today, an additional form of digital colonialism is in place, most visible in discussions of SNS privacy and of “big data.” Our movements and activities in digital spaces produce data that is collected, mined, and monetized. User activities, although they are not always experienced as labour, are subject to exploitation insofar as they generate surplus value extracted by owners. The revenue generated from our browsing histories and Facebook postings are not 1 Karl Marx, Capital Vol. I, Marx-Engels Collected Works, v. 35., New York: International Publishers (1996), 755– 59. 2 D.E. Wittkower, “Revolutionary Industry and Digital Colonialism,” Fast Capitalism 4.1 (2008): n.p. http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/4_1/wittkower.html. www.interstitialjournal.com · December: 2013 · 3 INTERSTITIAL JOURNAL D.E. WITTKOWER INTERVIEW shared with us, but are instead fed back into systems further integrating us into consumption and crypto-alienated production: consumption insofar as our explicitly or implicitly expressed desires (for example, explicitly through Facebook likes or implicitly through cookie tracking of browsing activity) allows retailers to stalk and surround us through targeted advertising, and crypto-alienated production through ever more “frictionless” and entertaining modes of sharing data.